Rule 35 has been substantially revised.A medical examination is not a matter of
right, but should only be permitted by the trial court upon a showing of good
cause. Rule 35 has always provided, and still provides, that the proponent of
an examination must demonstrate good cause for the examination. And, as before,
the motion and order should detail the specifics of the proposed examination.

The parties and the trial court should refrain from the use
of the phrase "independent medical examiner," using instead the
neutral appellation "medical examiner," "Rule 35 examiner,"
or the like.

The Committee has determined that the benefits of recording
generally outweigh the downsides in a typical case. The amended rule therefore
provides that recording shall be permitted as a matter of course unless the
person moving for the examination demonstrates the recording would unduly
interfere with the examination.

Nothing in the rule requires that the recording be conducted
by a professional, and it is not the intent of the committee that this extra
cost should be necessary. The committee also recognizes that recording may
require the presence of a third party to manage the recording equipment, but this
must be done without interference and as unobtrusively as possible.

The former requirement of Rule 35(c) providing for the
production of prior reports on other examinees by the examiner was a source of
great confusion and controversy. It is the Committee's view that this provision
is better eliminated, and in the amended rule there is no longer an automatic
requirement for the production of prior reports of other examinations. Medical
examiners will be treated as other expert witnesses are treated, with the
required disclosure under Rule 26 and the option of a report or a deposition.